Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan

[wildcat]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama unveiled his administration's blueprint for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines Thursday, saying such an investment is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment.



President Obama, with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, called for clean, efficient travel Thursday.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The president's plan identifies 10 potential high-speed intercity corridors for federal funding, including California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and New England.
It also highlights potential improvements in the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor running from Washington to Boston, Massachusetts.
Each of the corridors identified by the president's report are between 100 and 600 miles long. The blueprint envisions some trains traveling at top speeds of over 150 mph.
Federal grants would also be directed toward separate individual rail projects that are deemed "ready to go," with preliminary engineering and environmental work already completed.
"My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come," Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/barack_obama) said at an event near the White House.
Don't Miss



Biden rolls out $1.3 billion for Amtrak (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/13/biden.amtrak/index.html)


The president cited the success of high-speed rail in European countries such as France and Spain as a positive example for the United States.
His plan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/transportation_policy) would be funded in part through the recently passed $787 billion stimulus plan, which includes a total of $8 billion for improvements in rail service. Obama has also proposed a separate five-year, $5 billion investment in high-speed rail as part of the administration's suggested fiscal year 2010 budget.
"We're going to make travel (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/train_travel) in this country leaner and a whole lot cleaner," said Vice President Joe Biden, speaking before Obama.
The president spoke one day after the governors of eight Midwestern states sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood requesting stimulus funds for the construction of a regional network of faster passenger rail lines.
The city of Chicago, Illinois, would be the hub of the proposed Midwest Regional Rail System, which would stretch to Madison, Wisconsin, in the Northwest; St. Louis, Missouri, in the South; and Detroit, Michigan, in the East.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama pledged to support a national network of faster passenger trains. The administration has already dedicated $1.3 billion in federal funding for Amtrak.
The money for the rail service, which carried almost 29 million passengers last year, will go primarily to infrastructure repair and improvement

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/index.html (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/Obama%20unveils%20high-speed%20passenger%20rail%20plan)

very interesting

For the California High speed rail network, they have to put in new tracks, bridges in all the routes, they cannot use the freight lines because one, they are owned buy the Railway like UP and BNSF, also the lines are not high speed rail (max speed about 75-80MPH). Plus to run a efficient timetable without major delays cannot share with freight.

Now they have a some high speed lines already running in the USA like boston to DC, but add a Northwestern line, I don't know where there will run the rails, are they going to electrify the line, or run diesel-electric. This will be interesting to see.

It will create lots and lots of jobs, in building, maintaining and operations.

But to be successful then the cities serviced by train will need to have terminal close by for BUS/lightrail/METRO currently most cities don't like to mix the passenger trains and there own public transport.

[Abolith]

L.A. to Vegas in an hour FTW!! :D


Edit:

and you can already be drunk when you get there!!

[California Joe]

I think it's a good goddamned idea. Trains are cool.

[ronnieraygun]

I can't see how it is supposed to work. If you're lucky, you could maybe carve out regional lines as the article mentioned. There is no way you could connect them all.

So where does the right of way come from? Most railroads are operating at capacity right now and freight railroad companies are not obligated to drop their pants for this project and magically give up right of way or alter traffic patterns.

How do you build a new route if you can't magically take over and upgrade an old one? This is not the wild west. Building a new railroad line by acquiring land over large distances seems less than plausible these days. It could somehow be done were you to magically acquire all the old bike paths that are former rights of way, but that's not going to happen. Tons of little towns all over the country make money off those things.

This plan can't be all it's cracked up to be. If it's anything real that's going to happen, it's going to be scaled down and small-time and I highly doubt the trains are going to end up whipping down the tracks at 150 mph with any regularity.

We had made up our minds about passenger rail travel in this country long ago. As far back as 50-60 years ago they had commercial passenger trains going 90-100 mph on some routes. We abandoned this a long time ago as not commercially viable and now we're supposed to make this work with fed money as a public enterprise?

[wildcat]

I think it's a good goddamned idea. Trains are cool.
Amen, I love trains, I take the kids to see them working the yard every week, we park near the crossing, so when the train goes by, with the windows down we get honked at. My daughter has named all the passenger trains that go though as well.

[Panchito12]

Sure great idea. I would love to be able to go from DC to FL in 8-10 hours. Would take that before an airplane.

But just the California options are estimated at $40 BILLION!!! With all the money wasted in bailing out NY City investment banks, where is the dough going to come from?

[wildcat]

I can't see how it is supposed to work. If you're lucky, you could maybe carve out regional lines as the article mentioned. There is no way you could connect them all.

So where does the right of way come from? Most railroads are operating at capacity right now and freight railroad companies are not obligated to drop their pants for this project and magically give up right of way or alter traffic patterns.

How do you build a new route if you can't magically take over and upgrade an old one? This is not the wild west. Building a new railroad line by acquiring land over large distances seems less than plausible these days. It could somehow be done were you to magically acquire all the old bike paths that are former rights of way, but that's not going to happen. Tons of little towns all over the country make money off those things.

This plan can't be all it's cracked up to be. If it's anything real that's going to happen, it's going to be scaled down and small-time and I highly doubt the trains are going to end up whipping down the tracks at 150 mph with any regularity.

We had made up our minds about passenger rail travel in this country long ago. As far back as 50-60 years ago they had commercial passenger trains going 90-100 mph on some routes. We abandoned this a long time ago as not commercially viable and now we're supposed to make this work with fed money as a public enterprise?

The only option I see is they build the new line next to existing freight lines, this is what they are planning in California, but the down side is road crossing will probably have to go under the rails or the rails get raised above the road (way more expensive).

[Chulo]

Trains are great, and i like the idea of people movers that are more effective. But with current trends where an AMTRACK ticket cost about the same as a flight i hope that this plan has a better business plan.

[Izmirlian]

This would be great.

[wildcat]

Trains are great, and i like the idea of people movers that are more effective. But with current trends where an AMTRACK ticket cost about the same as a flight i hope that this plan has a better business plan.
plus the big delays on amtrak, they need their own rails.

[PeterRJG]

It won't happen. Too many costs, too many NIMBY concerns and pressure groups, too many distracting external factors.

[ronnieraygun]

The only option I see is they build the new line next to existing freight lines, this is what they are planning in California, but the down side is road crossing will probably have to go under the rails or the rails get raised above the road (way more expensive).

That's what I thought. I know from riding the AVE (Spanish high speed) they raised the roadbed, put in bridges and chained off the right of way so you just can't be like Joe High School and walk out on to the tracks.



Trains are great, and i like the idea of people movers that are more effective. But with current trends where an AMTRACK ticket cost about the same as a flight i hope that this plan has a better business plan.

That's a good point - I'm sure it doesn't have a "business plan" per se. They might have unrealistic forecasts based on years of studies which assume the "field of Dreams" idea that if you build it, they will come. It's public transport and the undertaking is thought of as a public good, regardless of whether or not it's going to work.

[wildcat]

could happen if they do what they did in Europe and Nationalize the railways, even though the railways been sold back into private sector, it what got them to function like they do. I would not want to see that though.

[California Joe]

Quit harshing our buzz Ronnie!!!

[WCF.KAS]

I would like to be able to take a bullet train to vegas...

You always assume the drive to vegas from LA will be fear and loathing-esqe open road.... until you're bumper to bumper in the heat on the 15

Rail travel in the states is never gonna be on the level of europe though, the distances are just too vast

[Izmirlian]

They should nationalize rail if they have to in order to get this done, and then privatize again after it's running. I mean seriously, whoever wants to block this should brushed aside by the feds. :)

[Ordie]

The only way it would work if it has its own dedicated right of way, double tracked, tunneled through mountians and grade separated for the entire trip.

The Swiss, obsessed with efficiency, once dug through a tunnel to save two minutes of running time.

[wildcat]

I would like to be able to take a bullet train to vegas...

You always assume the drive to vegas from LA will be fear and loathing-esqe open road.... until you're bumper to bumper in the heat on the 15

Rail travel in the states is never gonna be on the level of europe though, the distances are just too vast
reminds me of the train in the Island.

[Ordie]

They should nationalize rail if they have to in order to get this done, and then privatize again after it's running. I mean seriously, whoever wants to block this should brushed aside by the feds. :)

At issue is not whether to nationalize the operation, but who owns and controls the right of way. The freight rail companies is an oligopoly of a few companies who are making record profits operating under 19th century regulations.

[ronnieraygun]

could happen if they do what they did in Europe and Nationalize the railways, even though the railways been sold back into private sector, it what got them to function like they do. I would not want to see that though.

x10. The government actually did that with Conrail to save all the old east coast railroads in the '70s. Then after the whole mess emerged sound and profitable Conrail got split up between two major (private) carriers in the late '90s. They did it with Amtrak in the early '70s to basically nationalize what was left of passenger rail and I'm surprised Amtrak is still around. The government is already pretty deep in nationalizing unsound private entities at the moment so I hope the freight railroads don't shrug their shoulders all at once and say "yeah, we're screwed, too."

[Cedan]

Its a good idea, and if they build a new rail system for the high speed trains it will basically give freight rail traffic free passage on the old networks. Look at Spain and their high speed trains, gigantic success.

[Izmirlian]

At issue is not whether to nationalize the operation, but who owns and controls the right of way. The freight rail companies is an oligopoly of a few companies who are making record profits operating under 19th century regulations.

makes sense. So the Feds should force the oligopoly to invest in a new system with the guarantee that they will own it. And if they say no, then force them!

[ronnieraygun]

Quit harshing our buzz Ronnie!!!

hahaha

Trust me, if it works, I'll be hanging out the windows with overalls on and looking like a little kid.

[Chulo]

you cant compare European infrastructure with American infrastructure. Just because something worked in a country that is thousands of years old, have towns and cities close together, population in hubs and short (relative) distances it doenst mean it will work in a full continent with spread out cities and towns and different social structure when it comes to community and urban development.

Only when the rail system is more practical, cheaper AND convenient will Americans be willing to leave their cars at home. Those are three very hard standards to reach.

How do you think a rail system would work when having to stop at suburbs? A stop every 2 min for the next hour?

Direct long distance superfast trains will work better first- as long as they can make it become the cheaper alternative. But what happens when you get to the other end and have no car to use?

You have to look at American social structure and mentality and dependence on cars and having personal control over their transportation first.

[Ordie]

The government is already pretty deep in nationalizing unsound private entities at the moment so I hope the freight railroads don't shrug their shoulders all at once and say "yeah, we're screwed, too."

Nope, freight railroads are profitable due to fewer competitors, automation of operations, and lower fuel costs.

Even AMTRAK has been doing well lately. However they are handicapped because they rely on frieght railway right of way. The way it works, the right of way owners get priority of time slots, passenger rail second priority. That is why crosscountry rail service is always delayed.

[Macs.]

http://www.youtube.com/v/kCVXssdlv44

Trains are so last century. If you got a few billions too much, why not go for a Transrapid/Maglev ?

[plato]

http://www.youtube.com/v/kCVXssdlv44

Trains are so last century. If you got a few billions too much, why not go for a Transrapid/Maglev ?
Because it is too expensive. There is only one Maglev line in Shanghai, China, and they are NOT making any money there.

[wildcat]

There are many very successful rail companies in the USA, and over the last 10 years lots of small and regional lines have come about and are profitable, the big companies are really interested in long haul, and the small and regional cover the local industries, switching the local traffics to the larger companies. Rail freight is very environmentally friendly, one coal train is about 150 cars long, each car carries about the same as 4 tractor trailers, so that the same as 600 trucks off the road, being pulled pushed by the equivalent of 30 trucks. the new locos are coming out are very clean, also there are now hybrids.

as for nationalization, the only thing the government will do is kill the rail if they did that, if you look at freight traffic in Europe it is very small, most travel by road, seeing that you cannot schedule a freight train when ever you like because it all has to fit around the passenger service. In the US, the railway companies can put as many freight trains as needed on the rails, passenger trains get pushed though because of priority, and if they get delayed there is something like a $10K fine a minute if the railway they happened to be traveling over caused the delay.

[backpack]

There are many very successful rail companies in the USA, and over the last 10 years lots of small and regional lines have come about and are profitable, the big companies are really interested in long haul, and the small and regional cover the local industries, switching the local traffics to the larger companies. Rail freight is very environmentally friendly, one coal train is about 150 cars long, each car carries about the same as 4 tractor trailers, so that the same as 600 trucks off the road, being pulled pushed by the equivalent of 30 trucks. the new locos are coming out are very clean, also there are now hybrids.

as for nationalization, the only thing the government will do is kill the rail if they did that, if you look at freight traffic in Europe it is very small, most travel by road, seeing that you cannot schedule a freight train when ever you like because it all has to fit around the passenger service. In the US, the railway companies can put as many freight trains as needed on the rails, passenger trains get pushed though because of priority, and if they get delayed there is something like a $10K fine a minute if the railway they happened to be traveling over caused the delay.

Quoted for truth. I happen to work for one of those small, profitable railroad companies that you mentioned. We share our ROW with passenger trains everyday...and it is truly a hassle. Best/only bet: Separate the high speed passenger lines from the freight lines.

[sinophile]

There was only right way to do this... that was to push the envelope and compete with the Germans and French on a faster train technology. Would require new track and major infrastructure improvement.

Instead, as I understand most of the projects, their going to partially fund the pursuit of trains that are not as fast as what you would see in Japan and China.

If that's in-fact correct this is just a total waste. Here's how its going in China according to Clusterstock (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-what-it-2009-4):


First, there's the problem that the maglev doesn't really run from Pudong to Shanghai, but from Pudong to the end of one of Shanghai's subway lines, aka the burbs. So, to get to Shanghai proper, you have to schlep your bags again, either into the subway or into a taxi like the one you could have grabbed at the airport.
Then, there's cost. Thanks to China's polarized pricing system—one price for goods and services sold to foreigners and other rich folks, and another for everything else—the $6 one-way ticket is not a deal. When you throw in the added schlepping at both ends, the maglev loses in cost, convenience, and possibly even time.
These are two of the reasons the train is running at less than half of capacity, and, probably, hemorrhaging money. The maglev cost $1.2 billion or more to build, which means the system chews through north of $60 million a year in capital costs alone. Assuming 12,000 passengers per day (my estimate), the maglev generates about $27 million of revenue per year, or less than half its capital costs, much less its total costs. It is not clear who is absorbing these losses, China or Transrapid, but, either way, someone's taking a bath.

[Ordie]

I'd say bring back the Chinese to re-build our railroad.

[Kit]

I would adore better rails.

I consider myself a libertarian on most issues, but I'm a closet environmentalist. Rails are a very earth-friendly mode of transportation. Just take a road trip in the United States and you encounter an armada of trucks traveling cross-country. Why have all these diesel eating machines, when you can just have one? Trucks are really supposed to be middle-men in between loading stations, not the main source of shipping.

[Blue_0]

Replacing airlines with high speed trains would be sweet.

-- Bluelight

[Abolith]

That's a good point - I'm sure it doesn't have a "business plan" per se. They might have unrealistic forecasts based on years of studies which assume the "field of Dreams" idea that if you build it, they will come. It's public transport and the undertaking is thought of as a public good, regardless of whether or not it's going to work.



A line from L.A. or S.F. to Vegas would make money for sure. I know ALOT of friends that would love to hop on a train and not worry about those pesky things like a DUI...

[ggk]

awesome plan about time too train are environment friendly

[Kadrun]

oh please do it.
Even tho I could get to Vegas from LA about 3.2 hours by drivin' 1 hour train is much better.

[Zarak]

I come from a railroad family, so this is interesting news. No family members work for Amtrack though - its employees, to paraphrase my father in more polite terms, are essentially rejects from the major freight railroads.

There's also some problems to consider. High speed rail lines require completely new track and, often, new rights of way. Most mainline track in the US is class 3 or 4, meaning that due to the quality of the track limits freight trains to 40 or 60 mph respectively. High speed rail also necessitates things like gentle curves and slopes, which really weren't thought about when the original track was laid a century or more ago. High speed rail lines also generally avoid things like crossings for safety reasons - current lines do not. There's also the problem of bottlenecks like the Moffat Tunnel which are essentially at capacity already and would be extremely expensive to duplicate or bypass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express That's the one operational high speed rail line in the United States.

[ren0312]

very interesting

For the California High speed rail network, they have to put in new tracks, bridges in all the routes, they cannot use the freight lines because one, they are owned buy the Railway like UP and BNSF, also the lines are not high speed rail (max speed about 75-80MPH). Plus to run a efficient timetable without major delays cannot share with freight.

Now they have a some high speed lines already running in the USA like boston to DC, but add a Northwestern line, I don't know where there will run the rails, are they going to electrify the line, or run diesel-electric. This will be interesting to see.

It will create lots and lots of jobs, in building, maintaining and operations.

But to be successful then the cities serviced by train will need to have terminal close by for BUS/lightrail/METRO currently most cities don't like to mix the passenger trains and there own public transport.

130 to 150 is not really high speed, you would have to have trains that run at 190 to 210 to be considered high speed. The biggest impediment to a high speed train system in the US is the price of gas, which is less than half that of Europe. Another thing is that US public has always been very hesitant to have big ticket infrastructure projects, something like the Gotthard base tunnel would likely have been shot down by interest groups concerned about the high cost of the project.

[Zarak]

130 to 150 is not really high speed, you would have to have trains that run at 190 to 210 to be considerd high speed.

km/h != mph

[LuKaZz]

It's a good idea only if they manage to keep ticket prices down, otherwise it's doomed to fail.

I love trains and those new fast ones we have here in Europe are great, comfy, clean, they have a bar and all but it ends up costing twice as much as flying, especially since we have Ryan Air/Easyjet.

[ren0312]

km/h != mph

Miles per hour.

[Zarak]

Miles per hour.

No. You mean km/h.

http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971

"At all events, high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the "system": infrastructure (new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/h and upgraded lines for speeds up to 200 or even 220 km/h, some worked with tilting trains, some not), rolling stock and operating conditions."

Acela has a maximum operating speed on commercial operations of 240 km/h on upgraded lines, thus falling under the International Union of Railways' definition of High Speed Rail.

Only a handful of lines on Earth reach 200+mph in commercial operations and if that were in fact the definition things like Germany's ICE (which is a very modern high speed rail system designed for maximum normal operating speeds of 186 mph) would NOT be considered high speed rail...

[ren0312]

No. You mean km/h.

http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971

"At all events, high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the "system": infrastructure (new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/h and upgraded lines for speeds up to 200 or even 220 km/h, some worked with tilting trains, some not), rolling stock and operating conditions."

Acela has a maximum operating speed on commercial operations of 240 km/h on upgraded lines, thus falling under the International Union of Railways' definition of High Speed Rail.

Only a handful of lines on Earth reach 200+mph in commercial operations and if that were in fact the definition things like Germany's ICE (which is a very modern high speed rail system designed for maximum normal operating speeds of 186 mph) would NOT be considered high speed rail...

I was thinking more along the lines of the Eurostar or the TGV, instead of the somewhat slower ICE when I mentioned that 190 to 210 would be the ideal operating speed for high speed trains.

[Zarak]

I was wrong, I'm sorry.

No problem. :)

[Awatron]

*sing*Monorail! Monorail!

[Panchito12]

I'd say bring back the Chinese to re-build our railroad.

rofl
Ok, in the Category of "That's F***ed Up", I'm goin to have to give you the Lifetime Achievement Award for "That's F***ed Up" comments!

[Mat_fr]

Buy french ! Buy ALSTOM ! p-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yszy1wltw8&feature=related

New TGVs (the AGVs) have an operating speed of 360 Km/h.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8899/1als02francetransportal.jpg

mat

[szr]

Pleased and somewhat surprised to see that there's fairly widespread support among forum members for improved passenger rail in this country.

I also support high-speed continental rail travel as a long-term goal for this country. Equally important--and infinitely more attainable in the near-term--however, is the proliferation of regional passener rail, whether it be light rail, commuter rail, or something else as local needs dictate.

Aside from the apparent benefits such as making our towns and cities more accessable to citizens who must routinely commute vehicular distances for work or school, it will help to instill in this country's psyche, trains as a legitimite alternative to car travel for certain kinds of trips. That is important so that when the high-speed trains finally do arrive, whenever that is, they're a logical extension of the train travel we've already come to be familiar with rather than simply a multi-billion dollar curiosity without much utility.

[Telmar]

These could be interesting projects.

However, an aspect of the success of high speed rail travel in Europe is the possibility to go beyond a point to point connection with a supertrain, but to also use existing and non high speed lines for that train to pursue its trip to other cities and towns.

As I understand it, once an high speed US train would be off the high speed line, it would fall back on the freight lines and end up travelling much slower.

If you want to a good ROI off a train line, you have to have a very significant number of trains on it. And connecting two cities, even if large might not provide the return that makes the investment worthwile.

Map of French TGV network:
http://cheminet.free.fr/tgv.php

[Hyde]

I love trains, it is much nicer to drive trough a land/countryside/state by train than to just fly over it. In a train you really experience where you are going through and how beautiful it is. There are a lot of routes where you are travelling faster and cheaper with a train than you would with a plane. Examples:
London-Bruxelles (not sure bout that, but it was stated somewhere)
Frankfurt-Paris
Frankfurt-Cologne
Paris-Marsailles
Madrid-Barcelona
Tokio-Osaka
London-Paris
Hamburg-Berlin

And even if the sole train-ride vs. flight-time duration is smaller for the plane, you can still be arriving faster with a train because you don't need 30-60min to go to the airport, and the obligatory hour to hour-and-a-half before your flight starts for checking in and security controls. You just go to the city center, board your train and off you go. In the 2-3 hours you spend on arriving at your plane you have already arrived at your destination with train or are at least half way through. Would be nice to see some railroads in the US.

[TORA]

DA BEST : :D

Hitachi Ltd/Kawasaki Heavy Industry E5

The latest shinkansen model, the E5 is expected to be in service for 2011, 59 sets to be built.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/E5_rendering_20090203.jpg

Many models of shinkansen, Tokyo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Shinkansen.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/46057081_ca76d33921.jpg

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss245/T-O-R-A/JSDF%20various%20photos/claht01.jpg?t=1239978027

[Hyde]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/E5_rendering_20090203.jpg

The older models look much better. I love the Shinkansen 700T Taiwan uses!

[The Dane]

Good idea!!
Build a Maglev system.. +500 km/t p-)
http://www.youtube.com/v/VuSrLvCVoVk

[wildcat]

130 to 150 is not really high speed, you would have to have trains that run at 190 to 210 to be considered high speed. The biggest impediment to a high speed train system in the US is the price of gas, which is less than half that of Europe. Another thing is that US public has always been very hesitant to have big ticket infrastructure projects, something like the Gotthard base tunnel would likely have been shot down by interest groups concerned about the high cost of the project.
There are not many place in Europe that run above 150MPH, and in the UK they run between 90 and 135mph on most passenger trains. the TGV gets in some parts up to 200mph but most of it time is around 150MPH.

[wildcat]

Germany's ICE
When researching the bosten to DC line they imported and ran ICE here in the USA, but the Acela won the contract. There are on 20 Acela trains.

The fastest train ever in the USA is 183mph it was a BUDD RDC (DMU) with to jet turbines bolted to a reinforced front and roof by NYC.

[Gfunk]

one of the best ideas the Obama administration has brought to the table

anything that reduces our dependence on the car and foreign energy sources gets my support

[xav]

Alstom offer the AGV in configurations from seven to fourteen carriages, with a total of 250-650 seats, depending on internal layout and number of carriages.[1] The commercial service speed will be 360 km/h (220 mph).[2] The AGV weighs less than its rivals which reduces its power consumption, and it consumes 30% less energy than previous TGV designs.

-----

What about California's energy problems?
These trains still use a lot of eletricity off the "regular main" grids...


The french TGV (train à grande vitesse, High speed train) sets a new conventional rail record, with a speed of 574.8 kmh. The record was established on April 3,2007, surpassing the previous record ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skXT5NQzCg

[Migman]

How do you think a rail system would work when having to stop at suburbs? A stop every 2 min for the next hour?

You have commuter rail for that. The proposed HSR trains would only stop in major population centers. For example, part of the SEHSR that NC, SC and GA are studying would have trains stopping in Macon, Atlanta, Greeneville, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond and DC.

[Derbedeu]

Alstom offer the AGV in configurations from seven to fourteen carriages, with a total of 250-650 seats, depending on internal layout and number of carriages.[1] The commercial service speed will be 360 km/h (220 mph).[2] The AGV weighs less than its rivals which reduces its power consumption, and it consumes 30% less energy than previous TGV designs.

-----

What about California's energy problems?
These trains still use a lot of eletricity off the "regular main" grids...


The french TGV (train à grande vitesse, High speed train) sets a new conventional rail record, with a speed of 574.8 kmh. The record was established on April 3,2007, surpassing the previous record ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skXT5NQzCg


That was awesome! I didn't really compute how fast that was until it went underneath the bridge there at the end! I wiki'd TGV and i was surprised to see that the record for any train is 580 kph, but that was a maglev train. I know that this was an experiment, but it'd be nice if they could get to 300 mph (i have no idea how much that is in kph) as a standard for rapid trains (TGV, ICE, etc). I really hope Obama follows through on this plan.

[Ordie]

rofl
Ok, in the Category of "That's F***ed Up", I'm goin to have to give you the Lifetime Achievement Award for "That's F***ed Up" comments!

They did it before with the First Transcontinental on the Central Pacific line in 1869 from California through the Sierra Nevada and on to Utah.

[FLIPO]

Buy french ! Buy ALSTOM ! p-)


Buy TALGO!

[ronnieraygun]

When researching the bosten to DC line they imported and ran ICE here in the USA, but the Acela won the contract. There are on 20 Acela trains.

The fastest train ever in the USA is 183mph it was a BUDD RDC (DMU) with to jet turbines bolted to a reinforced front and roof by NYC.

hehe...I remember the "Aerotrain," it was supposed to be slick but ended up pulling commuter trains out of my hometown for a year and that was the end of that idea in the '50s or so.
When I look at some of the designs of the modern high-speed trainsets, it reminds of some of the old streamliners and some of the Raymond Loewy industrial design.


one of the best ideas the Obama administration has brought to the table

anything that reduces our dependence on the car and foreign energy sources gets my support

I'm not a basher on the poor guy just yet, but to be fair, they had been kicking around this idea for years and apparently a lot of pieces were already in place prior to Obama taking office, but I'm glad his admin seems to be receptive.


You have commuter rail for that. The proposed HSR trains would only stop in major population centers. For example, part of the SEHSR that NC, SC and GA are studying would have trains stopping in Macon, Atlanta, Greeneville, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond and DC.

There will be at least one butthurt town out there POed because they didn't get the "high speed rail."

I would still like more specifics about what this means...will it be a fleet of Acelas or will it be Genesis diesels breaking down all the time?

[ronnieraygun]

Buy TALGO!

IIRC Amtrak demoed a Talgo set in the '90s but chose something else, Acela maybe?

[Chulo]

You have commuter rail for that. The proposed HSR trains would only stop in major population centers. For example, part of the SEHSR that NC, SC and GA are studying would have trains stopping in Macon, Atlanta, Greeneville, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond and DC.
You forget that U.S does not have an infrastructural developed for commuters. Now that they have stopped at the major rail heads where do the people go? how do they get back home to the suburbs, where are the cars parked? Towns and cities are spread out over hundreds and thousands of acres. This plan is not just the rail system, but a full remodeling of the American transportation system and mentality.

[Chulo]

http://www.youtube.com/v/-0gpaVwcKyI

"I'm happy to be here. I’m more happy than you can imagine," said the Vice President, a noted rail enthusiast, before introducing the President for the release of his strategic plan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/#TB_inline?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external) for high speed rail in America. Revolving around the $8 billion in the Recovery Act and the $1 billion per year for five years requested in the President’s budget to get these projects off the ground, the President painted the picture (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-and-the-Vice-President-on-High-Speed-Rail/) that will become a reality as a result of these investments:

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.

There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit.

The inclusion of high speed rail in the Recovery Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/#TB_inline?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external) was one of many symbols of the new vision for America and its economy that guided the plan. As the Vice President explained in his introduction, joined by Transportation Secretary LaHood, in addition to putting Americans to work across the country it went towards several the Recovery Act’s key goals:

And we're making a down payment today, a down payment on the economy for tomorrow, the economy that's going to drive us in the 21st century in a way that the other -- the highway system drove us in the mid-20th century. And I'm happy to be here. I'm more happy than you can imagine -- (laughter) -- to talk about a commitment that, with the President's leadership, we're making to achieve the goal through the development of high-speed rail projects that will extend eventually all across this nation. And most of you know that not only means an awful lot to me, but I know a lot of you personally in this audience over the years, I know it means equally as much to you.

With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks. We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities. We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion. And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet. This is a giant environmental down payment.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6972/railmapblog0482095.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=railmapblog0482095.jpg)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/

Slower than a speeding bullet

Apr 8th 2009 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition
America’s trains may soon go faster—relatively


“WE’RE going to lay some rail!”, Rod Diridon shouted to a packed room in Chicago last month. “What kind of rail?” he asked. “High-speed rail!” the room roared back. Mr Diridon, chairman emeritus of the California High Speed Rail Authority, was addressing like-minded folk at the annual meeting of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The conference had attracted far more people than anticipated, lured, no doubt, by money. Barack Obama’s stimulus contains $1.3 billion for Amtrak and $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects. And support will be sustained with $5 billion in state grants over five years.
France, Japan, Spain, Germany, all have trains that zoom through the countryside at speeds up to 217mph (350kph). America has one “high-speed” rail corridor, from Washington to Boston, on which trains average about 80mph. With new federal cash, rail enthusiasts hope to convert a car-loving country to their cause. High-speed rail holds vast promise, from easing congestion (and speeding the flow of goods and services) to reducing carbon emissions. By April 18th Ray LaHood, the secretary of transport, must present a strategic plan for how the money will be spent. Those hoping for a Shinkansen in their suburb, however, will be disappointed.

In the 20th century rail travel languished as Americans fell in love with cars and interstate highways. Jet travel made railways even less attractive. A thinly scattered population and government subsidies for road and air travel did not help. In 1970 Congress created Amtrak to take over the ailing rail passenger service. Over the years the semi-private corporation has been plagued by poor management and volatile funding. Except for the Washington-Boston line, trains have been mostly slow, unreliable and unpopular. By 2000 rail accounted for just 1% of all intercity commercial trips. On National Train Day in May 2008 Amtrak employees handed out bumper-stickers that read “I’m a trainiac”, apparently not realising the irony of placing such a message on one’s car.
Trainiacs have had a better stretch of late. Ridership on Amtrak has jumped by 18% over the past two years. In October Congress reauthorised Amtrak for five years, and included plans to advance intercity and high-speed passenger rail. The stimulus added cash and momentum.
http://media.economist.com/images/20090411/CUS928.gif
There are reasons, however, to be cautious. First, the cost of any one project far exceeds the money available. California, which has the most advanced plan, would connect the state’s biggest cities with trains running at more than 200mph. In November Californians approved $9.95 billion of bonds for the project. On top of this, officials hope to get $12 billion-16 billion from Washington. The plan is expected to cost $40 billion in all. But the stimulus contains only $8 billion for the whole country.
Second, many plans would make trains high-speed only in a relative sense. Proposals that are cheaper than California’s are also much slower. A plan for the Chicago-St Louis line, for example, would speed up trains from 79mph to only 110mph. Multiple road crossings require trains to move more slowly than in Europe. Adding to the problem, most passenger trains run on track owned by freight railways. Congestion makes service less reliable.
Third, some proposed lines make more sense than others. High-speed rail is most viable, reports the Government Accountability Office, when it runs through a crowded corridor for distances of 100-500 miles. Trains must compete with cars and planes for speed, reliability and cost-effectiveness. Brian Taylor, a transport expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, worries that the “coolness factor” of high-speed rail can tempt planners to look for a place to lay track, rather than for problems that fast trains might solve. America has ten official high-speed rail corridors, designated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the 1990s. Each proposal weighs costs and benefits differently.
It is up to Mr LaHood and the FRA to make sense of this jumble. A modern railway system—connected to America’s existing roads, airports, subways and buses—could support future economic growth. But there must be a national strategy before the rubber hits the road or, as trainiacs prefer to say, the wheel hits the steel.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13446666

[ronnieraygun]

A plan for the Chicago-St Louis line, for example, would speed up trains from 79mph to only 110mph. Multiple road crossings require trains to move more slowly than in Europe


That's been in the makings for years, btw. I believe they started funding for commitees and testing special crossing gates on the line for this purpose in the late '90s. The line in question is the old SPCSL - Southern Pacific used it quite well as a gateway into Chicago during the '90s and after UP took them over, they had a several ways already to go between Chicago and St. Louis. Now, I think the line has a local or two once a day and that's it. It already has a bunch of Amtrak trains between Chicago and St. Louis - there are a few stops and to get it up to 110 mph they would obviously have to close down some crossings - the entire line is dotted with private farmer crossings, some of which belong to farmers who probably have LaHood over for dinner sometimes. It's a great candidate but as the Economist points out, topping out at 110 mph between Chicago and St. Louis is not exactly world-class high speed.

thanks for posting, Allen, I like the Economist sometimes.

[Ordie]

I'd bet Southwest Airlines and the ATA lobbies are planning the 'de-rail' the high speed rail proposal. (Pun intended)

[Chimera]

Very good idea and great move from the administration.

[armchairpundit]

Awesome. They should dig down optic fiber while they're making the rail.If you already have permissions, right of land and digging crews then pulling fiber is a minute extra cost.

This way the rail companies high speed internet connection, electric sockets and a relatively decent desk is a huge lure for business travelers that both cars and planes have trouble competing with. As a bonus they can rent out black fiber and over capacity to the telecoms for an added revenue source.

[ronnieraygun]

Awesome. They should dig down optic fiber while they're making the rail.If you already have permissions, right of land and digging crews then pulling fiber is a minute extra cost.

This way the rail companies high speed internet connection, electric sockets and a relatively decent desk is a huge lure for business travelers that both cars and planes have trouble competing with. As a bonus they can rent out black fiber and over capacity to the telecoms for an added revenue source.

I'm not so sure...my first layoff was from a telecom and that whole digging fiber optic thing was a sham that bankrupted a lot of players. It's amazing enough that they could actually get serious about faster passenger trains that actually haul people somewhere; I would not expect the project to become overly ambitious. I had seen one of the fiber optic trains in Denver that did the laying and digging - it's a totally different setup in terms of equipment and skillsets for the workers.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I look at Ohio where my relatives live and the state of public transport is a joke.

NSW which is a similar sized state has hourly rail travel connecting the major areas with Sydney. And daily services to most other major regional centers.

You can't even get a train from Cincinatti to Dayton!

It's crazy.

Not only does the Sydney network get people off the roads. It provides people with a cheap alternative to the Sunday drive and improves tourism.

http://www.cityrail.info/networkmaps/network_map.pdf

Is the network map. The distance covered by this network would be comparable to the Ohio. Yet Ohio does not have such a system.

Just worked it out. The furthest trip has a distance of 513.45klm and only costs $22 Australian.

[Zoomie]

One word: Amtrak.
How in the world does Obama expect some magical express train with infrastructure to work, when the gov't can't even run Amtrak profitably - even when it's unbelievable subsidized?

[Ordie]

One word: Amtrak.
How in the world does Obama expect some magical express train with infrastructure to work, when the gov't can't even run Amtrak profitably - even when it's unbelievable subsidized?

The key for any rail operation is owning, maintaining and managing its own right of way. AMTRAK does not own its right of way for the majority of its routes. They are depended upon by the frieght operators (UP, BNSF) who gets first dibbs on time slots.

AMTRAK does well on regional, high density routes where local subsidies and fare revenues off set federal funding. Moreover AMTRAK contracts its services to local commuter rail operations such as the CALTRAIN service between San Francisco and San Jose.

Given the recent fuel crisis, AMTRAK ridership has been going up.

For any future high speed rail proposal to work, it needs its own right-of-way that is grade separated. The major battle will be real estate and eminant domain when it comes to obtaining the right of way.

[Zoomie]

The key for any rail operation is owning, maintaining and managing its own right of way. AMTRAK does not own its right of way for the majority of its routes. They are depended upon by the frieght operators (UP, BNSF) who gets first dibbs on time slots.

AMTRAK does well on regional, high density routes where local subsidies and fare revenues off set federal funding. Moreover AMTRAK contracts its services to local commuter rail operations such as the CALTRAIN service between San Francisco and San Jose.

Given the recent fuel crisis, AMTRAK ridership has been going up.

For any future high speed rail proposal to work, it needs its own right-of-way that is grade separated. The major battle will be real estate and eminant domain when it comes to obtaining the right of way.
I know that they don't own the track and all that, but regardless, the government is practically paying the company's every bill, and they're still doing terribly. Not to mention their customer service sucks, and every time I've ridden with them, the train has been delayed from as *little* as an hour, to 7 freaking hours.

[Chulo]

The key for any rail operation is owning, maintaining and managing its own right of way. AMTRAK does not own its right of way for the majority of its routes. They are depended upon by the frieght operators (UP, BNSF) who gets first dibbs on time slots.

AMTRAK does well on regional, high density routes where local subsidies and fare revenues off set federal funding. Moreover AMTRAK contracts its services to local commuter rail operations such as the CALTRAIN service between San Francisco and San Jose.

Given the recent fuel crisis, AMTRAK ridership has been going up.

For any future high speed rail proposal to work, it needs its own right-of-way that is grade separated. The major battle will be real estate and eminant domain when it comes to obtaining the right of way.
Thats nice.. so who pays for all that? and if they want to recoop their expense then like AMTRAK their tickets are going to be noncompetitive when compared to an already established air network or interstate system. Can this rail system get me from VA to FL for less than $60 like some flghts do?

Its going to be a steep hill fight, and while i do see the merit in the system, i dont think its going to be easy to change peoples minds .. unless gas was $10 a gallon and they start to have all sorts of car tax. Intercity or major city connectors could work easier

[RSone]

I know that they don't own the track and all that, but regardless, the government is practically paying the company's every bill, and they're still doing terribly. Not to mention their customer service sucks, and every time I've ridden with them, the train has been delayed from as *little* as an hour, to 7 freaking hours.

Geez, here in The Netherlands, you get a refund if the train is half an hour late. Obviously the country is much smaller, but still.Typically trains are only a couple of minutes late.
The government owns the tracks, through a company called ProRail. NS(Nationale Spoorwegen, National Railways) and other operators, pay ProRail and thus indirectly the government for use of the tracks.
This construction allows for unbelievable control on wheeling and dealing of the various companies, and as a result, the railsystem in the country is pretty well organised.
Could be a good idea for this plan of Obama's

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/VIRM6.jpg

[wildcat]

The plan seriously needs to work with local transportation to be a win, hopefully I could catch the bus to the station where I live, at the moment the bus stops about 5 blocks away. In Portland the MET needs to go all the way to the station seeing it is a bigger city.

[Mackie]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Eurostar or the TGV, instead of the somewhat slower ICE when I mentioned that 190 to 210 would be the ideal operating speed for high speed trains.

205mph is the recent ICE speed. The problem in Germany is that we have a classic federal structure means a lot of ~1Mio people cities. It's impossible to build straight Paris-Lyon like rails in Germany. ICEs are focused on tilt technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi0EFCVsm3g

Watch 3:00 --> tilt technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ibNSta6FR4

The US coasts a the best place for HighSpeedTrains. 240mph are no problem.

[Hyde]

That was awesome! I didn't really compute how fast that was until it went underneath the bridge there at the end! I wiki'd TGV and i was surprised to see that the record for any train is 580 kph, but that was a maglev train. I know that this was an experiment, but it'd be nice if they could get to 300 mph (i have no idea how much that is in kph) as a standard for rapid trains (TGV, ICE, etc). I really hope Obama follows through on this plan.

That would be 480 kilometers per hour. This is not possible in the near future, as standard travelling speed is about 260-320 km/h currently.

PS: 1 kilometer is 1000 meters. 1000 meters are 1 093 yards. Just so you can imagine the distances.

[scrybe]

Isn't Amtrak already subsidized by the government to the tune of a millions of dollars a year, just to stay afloat? Is this another one of those?

[SBL]

Isn't Amtrak already subsidized by the government to the tune of a millions of dollars a year, just to stay afloat? Is this another one of those?
I'm pretty sure Amtrak is government-owned.

[scrybe]

Had to look it up. Government-owned with publicly traded common stock. Weird.

[Kit]

AMTRAK is there, but it is horribly managed.

I go to school in Columbia, South Carolina but I live in Maryland.

To drive by car, it takes roughly 8-10 hours.
To take a train from Columbia to Washington DC takes roughly 11 hours and 6 minutes, according to the AMTRAK website.
What kind of world is this? A car faster than a train?

Time of day is important too. If I want to take a train, I have to board the train at 4:08 AM, because that's the only train!

How am I going to get to the station? I'd rather not wake up one of my friends at that time. Public transportation then? The bus system in Columbia is horrid. It's never on time and is slow. Public transportation is a sad joke in America.

Usually what I do is I get a ride up to the Charlotte Airport and fly to Maryland. I feel that a train is capable but it's just not efficient at this time.

[ggk]

railtransit system are always a money loosing venture.... its hard to maintain the ratio between maintenance cost + r&d + salary + revenue.

some add extensive advertisment on to the train or even the guidway column to increase revenue.

IMHO the europeans are very experienced in this matter.....and the japanese

[Derbedeu]

That would be 480 kilometers per hour. This is not possible in the near future, as standard travelling speed is about 260-320 km/h currently.

PS: 1 kilometer is 1000 meters. 1000 meters are 1 093 yards. Just so you can imagine the distances.

Thanks... yea I read that it won't be possible to reach those speeds for commercial use since it requires heavy modification of the train and tracks (not to mention that the train lacked passengers and more cars that a regular TGV would have). Still cool to see though.

[jetsetter]

In the United States it was the public that abandoned the railroads, the railroads did not abandon the public. For this to work we must understand why people left.

[Zoomie]

In the United States it was the public that abandoned the railroads, the railroads did not abandon the public. For this to work we must understand why people left.
Cities, the car, and urbanization.

[jetsetter]

Cities, the car, and urbanization.

Of course, these reasons are well known, however in order for a new system to be successful it has to overcome the problems that drove people away from trains in the first place. It has to appeal to a people who obviously value their personal space.

[JKD]

In the United States it was the public that abandoned the railroads, the railroads did not abandon the public. For this to work we must understand why people left.

This played a part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

[JKD]

Cities, the car, and urbanization.

Cities aren't the problem...it's how we build them. We don't have to build them around cars.

I've been to places that don't even have sidewalks. Not that anyone would use them if they were there, we don't build at a human scale anymore. It'd be too far and too dangerous to walk

[ronnieraygun]

Of course, these reasons are well known, however in order for a new system to be successful it has to overcome the problems that drove people away from trains in the first place. It has to appeal to a people who obviously value their personal space.


Hehe...all the tailgating I get on the highway during my commute leads me to believe less and less in the whole personal space paradigm about Americans. We just don't know how to act in a crowd. Give a little, get a little, not me me me all the damned time.

I'll tell you what - when the gas prices go back, they won't have to worry about people rejecting mass transit. People might possibly go back to taking more trains if this high-speed thing works out, not because they would rather drive alone and ride some dude's ass for the hell of it as an expression of their rugged individualism, but rather because it would be the smart thing to do. The AVE in Spain seemed like a point of national pride when I rode it - I would be pretty stoked if we took it as seriously if this all works out.

[ronnieraygun]

This played a part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal


Yeah, but that's more along the lines of local mass transit. It's true that it's a crime that they dismantled "trolleys" and the interurban mass transit system only to come screaming back to it 50 years later (light rail in Portland, Minneapolis, etc) but this is about commuting between metro areas, more of a regional high-speed network as opposed to the old trolleys. Funny thing - some old trolley networks were just that, though - the "North Shore" line ran an electric train between Chicago and Milwaukee that hit 90 mph. Again, it's kind of odd that we end up going back to old ideas as if they didn't work before, but infrastructure of any kind requires subsidy and we Americans don't tend to like it, right or wrong.

[Nano]

I can see a few high speed corridors being worthwhile in researching and perhaps developing, but a high speed rail system for the sake of it seems to be a subsidy for the lucky few who it benefits. Train systems are enormously expensive and are not worthwhile taxpayer money beyond areas where they have return on investment. This money is nothing more than money being dolled out to the bureaucracy that supports the political machine. Public transit is horrendously inefficient overall and likewise managed. Government subsidized public transit needs to be re-done and costs cut all around.

Frankly the money would have been better spent on real energy research and development. Solar based nanotechnology research development will reap great dividends if it is applied to already existing technologies. Nanotechnology research already has impacted much of today's world without us much noticing it, but performance/energy efficiency improvements had come as a result.

[jetsetter]

Hehe...all the tailgating I get on the highway during my commute leads me to believe less and less in the whole personal space paradigm about Americans. We just don't know how to act in a crowd. Give a little, get a little, not me me me all the damned time.

I'll tell you what - when the gas prices go back, they won't have to worry about people rejecting mass transit. People might possibly go back to taking more trains if this high-speed thing works out, not because they would rather drive alone and ride some dude's ass for the hell of it as an expression of their rugged individualism, but rather because it would be the smart thing to do. The AVE in Spain seemed like a point of national pride when I rode it - I would be pretty stoked if we took it as seriously if this all works out.

You severely underestimate the American attachment to the automobile. Even if you put in a fully functional system today I would have my doubts about people using it to a degree that you imagine.

[DanteXavier]

You severely underestimate the American attachment to the automobile. Even if you put in a fully functional system today I would have my doubts about people using it to a degree that you imagine.

Well I'm sure there are enough progressive types in California(if nowhere else) to make it work. What better way than to cut carbon and "green the routine" than hopping on the train? It's Pelosi's dream come true.

Jokes aside, I think its about time we had something like this. Our rail network is antiquated compared to what we see in many other developed countries. We ought to catch up.

[ronnieraygun]

You severely underestimate the American attachment to the automobile. Even if you put in a fully functional system today I would have my doubts about people using it to a degree that you imagine.

-Not at all. I don't know if I was being clear enough, but I mean to say that things might go a certain way in the future that causes people to not be so attached to their cars, whether they like it or not. That's tough ****, I know - I love my car and love to drive and it would be a bummer. If you've looked through the thread you would know I have my doubts, but since it's some Fort Knox Amurican money being spent on this vision quest I hope it makes some sense.